8
$\begingroup$

Let $f\colon S\to T$ be any function. There is the obvious refinement of $f$, by replacing the codomain $T$ with the image. Thus, every function factors into a surjection followed by an injection (and not just any injection, but an inclusion): $$ S\twoheadrightarrow {\rm im}(f)\subseteq T. $$ This situation can be improved even further. Define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $S$ by saying that $a\sim b$ when $f(a)=f(b)$. Then $f$ factors into three maps:
$\require{AMScd}$ \begin{CD} S @>f>> T\\ @V \pi V V @AA i A\\ S/{\sim} @>>\overline{f}> {\rm im}(f) \end{CD} The map $\pi$ is the canonical surjection to the partition, given by the rule $s\mapsto \overline{s}$. The map $i$ is the stated inclusion map. Finally, the induced map $\overline{f}$, where $\overline{s}\mapsto f(s)$, is a (well-defined) bijection.

While this diagram implicitly occurs throughout abstract algebra, the first time I recall explicitly seeing it was in a homological algebra course (in the context of abelian categories) taught by T. Y. Lam, who called $\overline{f}$ the "makeover" of $f$ (because the TV had been on when he was preparing the lecture, and he happened to catch Jenny Jones talking about makeovers).

I'm preparing to teach this diagram to my (undergraduate) abstract algebra class, as a motivation for the 1st isomorphism theorems of groups and rings. I was wondering if the decomposition $f=i \overline{f}\pi$ has a name, in this general context of sets. I was a little surprised to discover that the decomposition also holds for general universal algebras. Perhaps there a name for the decomposition in that context?

By the way, unless another name is in use, I'm planning to call this result the "flock lemma". The reason is that if we view the elements of $S$ as pigeons, and the elements of $T$ as holes, and the elements of ${\rm im}(f)$ as the inhabited holes, then $S/{\sim}$ is the collection of "flocks of pigeons" organized by which inhabited hole the flock flies to. Feel free (in the comments) to suggest a better name (or vote for "flock lemma").

$\endgroup$
6
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The first isomorphism theorem is called that in universal algebra and sets are universal algebras. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 23, 2021 at 21:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda But if pigeons come in flocks, what do students come in? :) Maybe cohorts? Personally, I like the name "flock lemma" (yes, I'm old fashioned), but then the elements of T should not be (pigeon)-holes, since letters and correspondence go into pigeonholes, not pigeons! Hmmm... To be honest, I'm not sure that I know where flocks of actual pigeons congregate, other than maybe rooftops and around park benches where crumbs are being distributed. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 23, 2021 at 22:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JoeSilverman, re, I'm pretty sure pigeonholes as currently understood are named for the pigeonholes that really did hold pigeons: see sense 1 of pigeonhole. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Sep 24, 2021 at 0:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice Ha, my mistake, it seems. So the desk pigeonholes were named after the individual units in structures that people built to house pigeons. I guess that makes sense. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 24, 2021 at 1:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Probably of topic: I like to point out to students that given a relation $aRb$ on a set $A$, then $R$ is an equivalence relation if and only if there exists some function $f$ from $A$ to some set $B$ such that $aRB \Leftrightarrow f(a)=f(b)$. To me this makes the factorisation more natural. $\endgroup$
    – Nick S
    Commented Sep 24, 2021 at 15:34

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I call $f=i\circ \overline{f}\circ \pi$ the canonical factorization of a function when I teach second year undergraduate discrete math (except that I write $f=\iota\circ \overline{f}\circ \nu$, using the Greek letters iota and nu for the inclusion map and the natural map). I have a handout for my students about this here.

Edit:

Let me add a comment to address the questions asked by Pace.

Is there a reason that $\nu$ is natural, but the factorization is canonical?

Natural and canonical mean different things. Natural means: determined by Nature. Canonical means: determined by the Canon (the law). Something becomes Canonical because it has been ruled to be so. The authority to call a concept Canonical might be the person who introduced the concept, or it might be the community who have used and developed the concept, but a canonical concept does not have to defend its naturality.

In mathematics, I try to restrict the use of the word Natural to situations where there is a natural transformation around, but I refer to the universal map of a set $S$ to a quotient set $S/E$ which maps $s\in S$ to its $E$-equivalence class $s/E$ as the ``natural map'' because much of the community uses that term (e.g., in the case where you map a group $G$ to a quotient group $G/N$ by mapping an element $g\in G$ to its coset $gN$).

Finally, to answer the question, I chose Natural for the quotient map because it is a common convention to use this word in this context. I prefer Canonical over Natural for the factorization $f=\iota\circ \overline{f}\circ \nu$ because, in this classroom setting, I prefer to avoid any confusion that might arise from two differing and new uses of the word Natural. (At least, I prefer some word that is different from Natural, and Canonical is grammatically correct.)

do your students find the term coimage palatable?

I never consider questions like this. A term is needed, and a correct/conventional term exists. But, to try to give you some answer, students arrive in my 2nd year discrete math course somewhat familiar with "function", "domain", and "image". They are typically not familiar with "codomain", "coimage", "naural map", or "inclusion map", so a learnng period is needed.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Is there a reason that $\nu$ is "natural", but the factorization is "canonical" (other than the choice of the letter $\nu$)? Also, do your students find the term "coimage" palatable? (As a young student, I found that terminology very unintuitive. But it definitely shows up all over category theory!) What I'm calling "flocks of pigeons" are (as you state in your notes) called "fibers" by many others. I wonder which is easier for students to grasp, or if I should just settle for the historical terminology. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 23, 2021 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ For a textbook reference, see Jacobson's Basic Algebra I, section 0.3 on "Factoring a map through an equivalence relation". But no name for the factorization given there. $\endgroup$
    – spin
    Commented Sep 24, 2021 at 6:28
  • $\begingroup$ I think (despite its etymology) the word "canonical" is not used as synonym of "decided by the canon" in mathematics, but pretty much as a synonym of "natural" (except perhaps nuances about natural transformations, in which case one uses "natural" instead of "canonical"...) $\endgroup$
    – Qfwfq
    Commented Sep 24, 2021 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your additional answers! I had been calling $\pi$ a "canonical projection", but you've convinced me that "natural" is better than "canonical" here. On coimage, I still have some reservations. If a student were to google "coimage", and look at the wikipedia article, it would be meaningless to (most of) them. Moreover, this partition $P$ is really independent of any categorical or algebraic considerations---it is purely set-theoretic. That said, I suppose one could think ahistorically about this, and treat the coimage like the image, despite the confusion that googling leads to. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 24, 2021 at 18:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .